UPDATE: WV Supreme Court Impeachment Proceedings

Avatar

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

8 Responses

  1. Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

    Hopefully this moment of sanity was brought to you by voters contacting their senators and calling shenanigans, such that people started feeling uncertain with regard to the next election.Report

    • Avatar Em Carpenter in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      I had to update my update. It seems their agreement fell apart on procedural grounds. Trials are set after all.Report

      • Avatar Philip H in reply to Em Carpenter says:

        The danger of going to trial, even in the relatively loose legal environment of impeachment is that evidence has to be presented and witnesses cross examined. State legislators really really need to think long and hard about what price they are willing to pay here. Because if the judges being tried are acquitted that will dog people for several election cycles. If they are convicted – particularly along party lines – it will dog people for several election cycles.Report

        • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to Philip H says:

          I don’t know that they need to present witnesses. Sounds like the procedural issue might be that the Senate cannot broker a deal with any Justices without the House. But the Senate could shortchange the House’s presentment by ruling that both sides can present any evidence they want considered in writing.Report

          • Avatar Em Carpenter in reply to PD Shaw says:

            Yeah, I need to update and fix a factual error. Apparently, the House negotiated the deal and the Senate said no, arguing that nothing in the rules allows for an agreement.
            They also refused to halt proceedings on Justice Davis, despite her having resigned, which seems to me a big waste of time and money.Report

            • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to Em Carpenter says:

              OK, so it sounds to me like once the House voted on the impeachment and sent it over to the Senate, they lost authority over the matters. The House representatives can make a recommendation.

              Still it doesn’t seem like this should take long unless the Senate wants it to. The Blago trial took four days, and as far as I can recall the main fact “testimony” were a sampling of the FBI tapes. The FBI/DOJ asked that its witnesses not be used for fear of interfering with the criminal trial. So it was mostly documents and official records that everybody was already familiar with. Blago didn’t testify or even participate until his closing statement, as he was similarly constrained to avoid doing anything that would prejudice his criminal trial.Report

              • Avatar Em Carpenter in reply to PD Shaw says:

                There was lots of testimony given at the House hearings. I wonder if they will duplicate it?
                The trial is run by “managers” from both chambers, who act as the prosecutors, but the Senate basically said they didn’t think they could “assume guilt or innocence” without evidence being presented. Which is strange, because a lot of them are lawyers who seem to be pretending not to know what a stipulation is. Also, my reading of the rules seems to allow for stipulation, so I don’t know what’s going on.
                Another odd thing about this as that it is not really split on party lines. There are Rs and Ds arguing both sides of it.Report

              • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to Em Carpenter says:

                I don’t think there is a rule against hearsay; I guess the questions would be whether live testimony is necessary to get public buy-in and what the defense needs to respond. I guess if I were running things and wanted to control the process, I would admit the House record into evidence and work from there.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *